The
Digital Audio Format Test!

Two songs were
taken as reference in order to assure the best sound-quality for each
of the two tested categories of music:

Setting The Trap
from the “Home Alone” Soundtrack, composed by John
Williams, as a reference for classical music with big orchestra.

So Far Away from the
album “Brothers in Arms (Remastered)”, by Dire
Straits. This album was bestowed several times for it’s
outstanding sound-quality and it is taken here to demonstrate the
quality of the audio-formats regarding modern pop-music.

Both in the tests and the
comparisons, you will be able to download sound-samples of each
compression. Just click on the bitrates (kbps) in each case.
All files in this test were converted at a constant bitrate to assure
the best quality possible.

The individual files were converted with these programs:

MP3: Audio Conversion Wizard 0.97b
(LAME 3.70 Encoder)

WMA: Audio Conversion Wizard 0.97b
(Windows Media Audio 8)

OGG: Audio Conversion Wizard 0.97b

VQF: Twin VQ Encoder 2.1

mp3PRO: Thomson mp3PRO Encoder
Demo 1.0.2

Afterwards the files were decoded to
WAV with the according programs and played using the Windows Media
Player 7.0.
This way it was avoided that a possible lack of quality was due to the
individual players’ decoder. The source files were of course taken
from the original CDs. The WAV-files had the following format: 44100
hz, 16 bit, stereo.
All ratings refer to the sound-quality in per cent of the source files
(rating: 100 %).

The Comparison of Digital Audio
Formats:

a) MP3:96
kbps - Regarding the original file the first thing to strike
one’s mind is the very dull sound. High frequency tones almost get
lost in the mustly noise. Fine and clear tones however sound smeary
and above all the bass is slightly stronger than in the source file. (rating:
40%)112
kbps- At the beginning of MP3 this bitrate was said to be
almost lossless. By now, most users have accepted that this simply
isn’t true. Still, the fine and clear tones sound smeary, you even get
the feeling you are listening to a fidgety running cassette-tape. The
bass sounds quite good now, crystal clear tones still seem as if they
were covered with a veil of some kind. (rating: 70 %)128
kbps- MP3s converted with this bitrate are most common by
now, who would be surprised - there’s hardly an audible difference to
the original. High frequency tones sound almost too clear. Although
the bass still sounds good and there is no smearing any more, the song
doesn’t sound as dynamic as the source file does. (rating: 80 %)

b) WMA:48
kbps- The “almost CD-quality” Microsoft promises at this
bitrate turns out to be a bad joke: the smearing is unbearable and the
very musty sound spoils one’s fun in listening to this in the same
way the small dropouts you can hear in the background at high
frequencies do. To crown it all the songs sound somewhat metallic and
at some silent moments you can hear a constant background-noise that
is of course missing in the original song. Above all, the song lacks
the stereo-effect the source file has. (rating: 20 %)64
kbps- “CD-quality”, that’s how Microsoft describes the
quality at 64 kbps. Unfortunately they do not mention with which CDs
they have achieved it. A smearing sound all along the whole song, at
silent moments you can still hear a background-noise. High frequency
tones get lost in the musty noise and sound distortedly, even the
metallic clattering is still there. (rating: 40 %)96
kbps- There is still a smearing noise when playing very clear
and fine tones at 96 kbps. The metallic sound hasn’t gone completely
either. Very clear tones sound slightly dull. Concerning the quality
it is almost as good as an MP3 converted at 112 kbps. (rating:
65 %)128
kbps - On the contrary to MP3 there is really no difference
audible to the source file. Clear and fine tones are played without
smearing as well. The WMA seems a little more dynamic than the MP3. (rating:
95 %)

c) OGG:96
kbps- OGG Vorbis really surprises here: almost no smearing at
high frequencies, the bass sounds a little stronger than the original.
In the big picture the 96 kbps OGG-file sounds better than an MP3-file
encoded at a bitrate of 112 kbps, but still a little worse than a WMA-file
at 128 kbps. Thus OGG offers best sound-quality at this bitrate. (rating:
75 %)128
kbps- Like the WMA-file there is no difference to the
original audible whatsoever. You may say the song sounds almost too
dynamic, since some background-noises are threatened to get lost. (rating:
95 %)

d) VQF:80
kbps- VQF also suprises here: you can hardly hear any of the
well-known smearing, on the other hand the song sounds way too dull
and the bass is way too strong. (rating: 60 %)96
kbps- Once again at 96 kbps there’s hardly any smearing
audible, but still the song sounds too mustly and seems to be covered
by a veil. The bass is now just the way it should be. (rating:
65 %)

e) mp3PRO:64
kbps- With the encoder-demo that is available at the time
being, sound-files can only be encoded at this bitrate. By doing so,
they want to interest users in the new audio-format. Unfortunately,
there is also a constant smearing sound audible at high frequency
tones and the song just sounds dull in general. The bass is too strong
and clear, fine tones get lost and seem distorted. Maybe mp3PRO sounds
like a 128 kbps WMA when encoded at 96 kbps. (rating: 50 %)

a) MP3:96
kbps- Like noticed with the classical song the first thing to
get aware of is the constant smearing sound. It also seems dull, and
clear and fine tones get “swallowed” by the background-noise. Above
all, the vocals appear to be distorted. (rating: 30 %)112
kbps - Although there’s still a smearing-sound, the drums seem
almost too clear and sterile. The bass sounds good; however the vocals
sound obviously wobbly, like played under water. (rating: 45 %)128
kbps- At 128 kbps there’s still a slight smearing-sound
audible in the singers’ voices. The drums don’t sound 100 % like the
original and the bass is a little too weak. (rating: 80 %)

b) WMA:48
kbps- The tones sound too heavy in general, the constant
smearing and the drums’ metallic rattling disqualify this bitrate for
good. (rating: 25 %)64
kbps- Still, the song sounds smeary and the background
somewhat metallic, the quality is however audibly better than at 48
kbps. (rating: 45 %)96
kbps- There’s a completely different picture at 96 kbps:
although the song sounds slightly dull when there are high frequency
tones, it sounds dynamic and the bass seems very natural. The only
thing to complain about is the slight, but noticeable smearing sound. (rating:
80 %)128
kbps- Unlike the MP3 there is no audible difference to the
original. The drums and the singing sound clear and clean. No
smearing, good dynamics and a naturally sounding bass. (rating:
95 %)

c) OGG:96
kbps- OGG truly is a surprise here as well: the song sounds
hardly audibly dull when playing very clear drum-tones. No smearing,
good dynamics and a perfect bass. (rating: 90 %)128
kbps- What’s to say? It sounds like the WMA at 128 kbps: just
like the original. Clear, dynamically with a bass no one has to
complain about. (rating: 95 %)

d) VQF:80
kbps- The same weakness VQF had with the classical song does
unveil here, too: no smearing but a basically dull sound that becomes
apparent when playing the drums. The dynamics generally sound a little
too heavy. (rating: 70 %)96
kbps- At 96 kbps the song still sounds dull, but because
there is no smearing audible whatsoever, it has the same quality as an
MP3 converted at 128 kbps. (rating: 80 %)

e) mp3PRO:64
kbps- When playing classical music the infirmities of mp3PRO
became indeed quite obvious. They are however not that apparent when
playing rock-/pop-songs. A slight smearing-sound occurs when drums or
vocals are played. Yet there’s hardly more to complain about, except
that some tones sound almost too clear. (rating: 75 %)